Adler’s innovations opened the possibility of a proliferation of concurrent psychoanalyses, which was precisely what the founding of the IPA had attempted to stop. Thus simple theoretical disagreement would have been insufficient – it was necessary that Adler lose all credibility.
In January and February 1911, a series of four meetings was convened in Vienna to discuss the theoretical differences between Freud and Adler.
Stekel: One Freudian after another got up and denounced, in well-prepared speeches, the new concepts of Adler. Even Freud himself read a paper against his pupil.194
Minutes of the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society, 1 February, 1911: Personally, he [Freud] resented the fact that the author talked about the same things as he did, but without designating them by the same terms they already had, and without making any efforts to establish any relationship between his terms and the old ones . . . Adler’s writings are not a continuation upward, nor are they a foundation underneath; they are something else entirely. This is not psychoanalysis . . . In thus denying the reality of the libido, Adler behaves exactly as the neurotic ego does.195
Stekel: At the next meeting, Freud defended his behaviour toward Adler. He said, ‘Adler isnt a normal man. His jealousy and ambition are morbid.’196
The pathologisation of opponents was now publicly meted out to Freud’s own pupils. After these meetings, Adler and other associates resigned and formed a Society for Free Psychoanalytic Research, a pointed rejoinder to Freud’s authoritarian tactics. Freud himself promptly took over the chairmanship of the Vienna society and denounced Adler’s departure as a heresy.197 In October of the same year, the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society forbade membership of both societies.
Adler, 1912: The impulse for the founding of the ‘Society for Free Psychoanalytic Research’ came in June, 1911, from several members of the ‘Vienna Psychoanalytic Society’, that was under the direction of Professor Sigmund Freud. These members had occasions to point out that it was being undertaken to commit the members of the original Society scientifically to the entire range of Freud’s assumptions and theories. For these members, such a development not only seemed difficult to reconcile with the fundamental principles of scientific research, but particularly dangerous with a science as young as psychoanalysis. In their opinion, it would further place in question the value of the results that had already been achieved if members of the Society were prematurely bound to certain formulas and thereby obliged to give up the possibility of undertaking research directed toward new solutions.198
It wasn’t enough only to expel dissidents: others had to be barred from entering. One year after the Isserlin episode, Hans Maier, who had succeeded Jung at the Burghölzli, was excluded from attending the Zurich Psychoanalytic Society. Freud had previously asked Bleuler to break off his relations with the psychiatrists Alfred Hoche and Theodore Ziehen under the rationale that they were critical of psychoanalysis. After the Maier episode, Bleuler decided that he had had enough and left the IPA.199
Hans Maier to Alphonse Maeder, 25 October 1911: What I had against the Association from the beginning was its organisation and its composition, from which I thought I foresaw that it would lead to a clique formation which I absolutely detest in the scientific field. I must say that the events of the years which have passed since then have surpassed my fear by far, and I had never thought that an alteration of individual personalities and their whole attitude in scientific and professional matters could show itself in a short time in such a manner and in such strength, as had occurred.200
Bleuler to Freud, 27 November 1911: To my great regret I must yet again leave the psychanalytic association. In a polite but very definite way my secondary doctor, whom I had occasionally invited to the scientific meetings, was asked to come no more. To give the exact form: he was told he must either join or waive his appearance, after which he explained he could not join due to definite reasons.201
Freud to Jung, 30 November 1911: Maier in any case must go.202
Bleuler to Freud, 4 December 1911: The ‘who is not for us, is against us’, the ‘all or nothing’, is in my opinion necessary for religious communities and useful for political parties. For this reason I can understand the principle as such, but I consider it harmful for science . . . I recognize in science neither an open nor a closed door, but no door, no doorstep at all. For me, Maier’s position is as valid or invalid as of anyone. You say he wanted only the advantages [of being a member], but wanted to make no sacrifice. I cannot understand what kind of sacrifice he should have made, except to sacrifice one part of his views. You would not demand this of anyone . . . I do not believe that the interest of the Association demands such exclusionary behaviour in any way whatsoever; I definitely believe the opposite. This is not a ‘Weltanschauung’.203
Bleuler to Freud, 1 January 1912: If it were a scientific association in the same sense as other ones, nobody could have objected, and it would simply have been useful. But it is the type of association that is harmful. Rather than to strive to have many points of contact with the rest of science and other scientists, the Association isolated itself with barbed wires from the external world, which hurts both foe and friend . . . The psychoanalysts themselves have validated the malicious words of Hoche about sectarianism, which at that time was unjustified.204
It was now Forel’s turn to weigh in. With the sixth edition of his book Hypnotism, he added a lengthy chapter on psychanalysis. The first paragraph rectified Freud’s neologism. The second attributed the discovery to Breuer. After recalling that the roots of psychanalysis were to be found in Liébeault’s theory of suggestion, he enumerated the authors who had developed the psychanalytic method: Freud, Vogt, Graeter, Frank, Bezzola, Du Montet, Loÿ, etc. One can imagine Freud’s reaction to see himself cited as one continuer amongst others of Breuer’s work. The rest of the chapter was a detailed critique of Freud and Jung’s theories, accusing them of insisting in a unilateral manner on sexuality and for having abandoned the valuable resources of the cathartic method, hypnosis and auto-suggestion for an arbitrary and dogmatic system of interpretation.
Forel: The discoverer of the psychanalytic method from the point of view of its psychological as well as therapeutic significance was Dr. Joseph [sic] Breuer of Vienna . . . We close this chapter by thanking Breuer above all, but also Freud, K. Graeter and Frank, as well as the other authors whom we have cited, for their fecund ideas. This thanks does not extend to the dangerous hypotheses and dogmas of the Freudian school, properly speaking.205
Freud to Ferenczi, 21 May 1911: Forel has presented me with the 6th edition of his Hypnotism; but what is in there about ΨA is, regrettably, dim-witted and represents the decidedly not dim-witted biases of Frank and O. Vogt, whose services – I do not know what they are – he can’t praise highly enough – they are puny Johnny-come-latelys, nothing more. His arguments, e.g., against sexuality, are really depressing for a man who has written a fat book about the sexual question.206 It really put me out for once.207
Eight months later, the dispute between the two psych(o)analytic factions broke out in a series of exchanges in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, the main Zurich newspaper. This important controversy, which was first reconstructed by Ellenberger,208 has been passed over by Freudian historiography. It forms the first example of the numerous polemical Freud wars played out in newspapers and popular periodicals. The spark which gave rise to it was a highly critical talk on psychoanalysis by Dr Max Kesserling, a specialist in nervous disorders at the Kepler-Bund in Zurich. This was an anti-Haeckelian organisation dedicated to denouncing the use of science for atheist propaganda. It seems that the Kepler-Bund decided to discuss psychoanalysis after a review of Frank’s book in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung which drew a materialist lesson from it. On 2 January, the Neue Zürcher Zeitung published a review which denounced Kesserling’s talk and the Kepler-Bund. This led to an avalanche of letters by adepts and adversaries of psychoanalysis. The most acerbic attacks against psychoanalysis came from Franz Ma
rti, who made fun of the sexual obsessions of the psychoanalysts with comical examples. Jung intervened to defend the honour of psychoanalysis. He critiqued Kesserling for having a debate on matters of medical research in front of a general public.209 He accused Marti of not having a medical qualification and of behaving in an anti-scientific fashion through taking up the controversy in the newspapers. He also claimed that the psychoanalytic concept of sexuality was much more extended than the ‘vulgar’210 concept which its critics held. To this, Marti retorted that, in practice, psychoanalytic interpretations always went back to the so-called vulgar meaning.
Jung to Freud, 23 January 1912: We have been victims of ‘blackmail’211 by the newspapers and were reviled although no names were named. I have even consulted a good lawyer with a possible view to bringing libel action. But there is little prospect of success because the attack was indirect. I have therefore confined myself to a public protest by the International PsA Association, Zürich branch; it will appear shortly in the press.212
On 25 January, it was Forel’s turn to enter the debate, defending psychanalysis. He accused Kesserling and Marti of confounding the true psychanalysis of Breuer and Frank with the psychoanalytic deviation of Freud and Jung.
Forel: It is deeply to be regretted that such a fruitful and thoroughly correct theory such as Breuer’s cathartic theory should come into miscredit through the onesidedly sexual and endless digression of the Freudian school. From the side of the Freudian school, much too much exegesis, interpretation of dreams, and belleletristic studies of literary antiquity have been brought in, and thus the scientific method has been abandoned. In public the matter has then become dilettantish playing around.213
Kesserling and Marti replied by implicitly assimilating Forel to the Freudians. On 1 February, Forel replied that whilst they had good reason to critique the Freudian school, this should not lead one to condemn psychanalysis as such – which wasn’t Freudian, but Breuerian.
Forel: I must consequently clearly state that serious researchers entirely share with Mr. F[ranz] M[arti] his condemnation of the unilateral character of the Freudian school: its sexual church outside of which there is no salvation, infantile sexuality, its Talmudic-theological interpretations and so on . . . What Mr. F. M. does not say is that next to the sectarian, sexual and further derailments of the international psychoanalytic movement, there is another psychanalysis without o, which applies itself honestly, parallel to the study of the theory of suggestion (hypnotism) and psychotherapy, to separate the true scientific kernel from the researches of Breuer and Freud, to deepen them thanks to a quiet and serious study, and to make them useful for the therapy of nervous disorders.214
The letter was followed by a short response from Marti thanking Forel for his clarification, and declaring that the discussion was closed, to everyone’s satisfaction. Thanks to Forel’s move, Jung was isolated on the sidelines, and he himself was taking hold of a psychanalysis purged of its Freudian excesses.
Ludwig Binswanger to Freud, 5 March 1912: In the Zurich press campaign, it was Forel who annoyed me most with his underhand conduct.215
Stuck between Freud and his colleagues (between the inside and the outside), Jung’s position became more and more untenable. As we have seen, it was in the same year that conflict between Freud and Jung broke out into the open.216 This was potentially disastrous. Freud was not only on the point of losing his most precious ally, who had led the war of which Ferenczi spoke (and taken the blows in his place), but also the whole Zurich school, and with it the hope of internationalising the psychoanalytic movement and colonising psychiatry. Psychoanalysis was in danger of returning to becoming a local, Viennese affair. Furthermore, after Adler, Jung was the second psychoanalyst who was putting forward positions which increasingly resembled those of Freud’s critics.
Freud to James Jackson Putnam, 20 August 1912: After the disgraceful defection of Adler, a gifted thinker but a malicious paranoiac, I am now in trouble with our friend, Jung, who apparently has not outgrown his own neurosis.217
Freud to Putnam, 1 January 1913: For me it seems like a déjà vu experience. Everything I encounter in the objections of these halfanalysts I had already met in the objections of the non-analysts.218
These matters came to a head at the psychiatric congress in Breslau in 1913, which can be seen to have been the last great battle of the first Freud wars.219 The organisers had arranged a session on the importance of psychoanalysis, with Bleuler and Hoche due to speak. It was clear from the outset that Freud’s adversaries were determined to launch a final assault on his psychoanalysis. Before the congress Hoche had sent round a circular letter to colleagues seeking information concerning unsuccessful treatments by psychoanalysis. In an attempt at pre-emptive damage control, the Freudians published Hoche’s circular in the Internationale Zeitschrift für Psychoanalyse.
Freud to Jung, 3 March 1913: Hoche’s circular letter has come into our hands. Maeder is going to send it to you for publication in the Internat. Zeit.220
Internationale Zeitschrift für ärztliche Psychoanalyse, 1913:
An Opponent of Psychoanalysis
We believe we are fulfilling a duty, if in this position we hang below this circular from Prof. Hoche in Freiburg.
Freiburg I. B., 1 February 1913. Dear esteemed colleague! I have taken on with Bleuler the report On the value of psychoanalysis for the annual meeting of the German Association for Psychiatry (in May in Breslau). It would be of great value to me and to others to gain a reliable judgement of the manner and extent of the damages caused by psychoanalytic procedures to patients. I ask you for the courtesy, if you have such factual material at your disposal, to communicate it to me in a form suitable for yourself. (I do not have in mind precise figures nor detailed individual case histories.) The use I intend will be without indication of names and will occur in such a way that it will in no way anticipate possible comments or discussion on your part. I know from my own experience how disagreeable such a survey will feel, but to my regret I see no other way of obtaining this important material. With the expression of my friendly thanks, I am, yours truly, Hoche.221
Hoche, presentation at Breslau, 1913: The editors of this journal have apparently already become so foreign to the medical manner that they do not know that it is very frequently sought to measure the dangerousness of particular therapeutic interventions, for example, narcosis and so on, through statistical methods.222
On the surface, it appeared as if Bleuler was going to defend psychoanalysis, in the by now well-established tradition of congress duels. However, to judge by a letter from Sweasey Powers to Smith Ely Jelliffe, written immediately after the congress, the truth was somewhat different. Lurking behind the scenes was none other than Emil Kraepelin. As he expressed it, the object of the congress was to give Bleuler an opportunity of renouncing Freud.
Sweasey Powers to Smith Ely Jelliffe, 25 May 1913: [Kraepelin] asked me if I did not realize that all of the members and that is to say all of the prominent psychiatricians in Germany were against it. I then said that I hoped to hear some scientific facts brought against it. He then said that was not the purpose of bringing up the discussion. The purpose was to give Bleuler the opportunity to publicly back-slide from the Freud-school as his name was considered to have had a great influence in keeping the Freud theories alive. The purpose was also to place the German psychiatricians on record as being against the Freud theories.223
Bleuler began his ‘Critique of Freudian theory’ by articulating his subjective standpoint.
Bleuler: My critique is in this respect a subjective one: I judge Freud’s theories in the first instance through my own experience.224
Bleuler could not have been clearer: far from being external, his critique was based on the results of his self-analysis, but also of his course of analysis by correspondence with Freud. Bleuler noted that his 1911 paper on psychanalysis had stressed the positive side;225 this one would represent the negative, with the advantage of further e
xperience. Bleuler’s tactic was to identify and single out each aspect of Freud’s theories, and those of some of his followers, and to indicate what he accepted and what he rejected, in a meticulous and detailed fashion. Such an itemised view was precisely what Freud was militating against. Bleuler’s paper represented the most detailed examination of psychoanalytic concepts which had yet been undertaken.
Hoche began his paper by stating that he had studied the psychoanalytic literature and that he too had analysed his own dreams according to the Freudian interpretations (according to Freud’s statement at the Clark conference in 1909, this would be sufficient to make him a psychoanalyst). Considered from a theoretical perspective, Freud’s theory was one of the many possible philosophies of the unconscious, and as such, made assertions which superceded any possible experience.
Hoche: On the dark stage of the unconscious, the theory can let whatever it wants happen.226
Being unverifiable, psychoanalytic interpretations were thus completely arbitrary. In this respect, the study of the literary products of the sect enabled a specific methodology to be identified.
Hoche: One of the most important means with which the results are reached and secured is the confusion of the possibility of thinking of a connection with the proof of one, the confusion of the finding of the analogy between different processes with the proof of their identity, the confusion of the emergence of an idea with established knowledge.227
As Hoche saw it, this was advanced through apodictic and dogmatic assertions, rash assertions and the abdication of generally convincing proofs. Given the sect-character of the movement, these had a suggestive effect on the believers.
The Freud Files Page 11
